Neurology Reviews

The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.

Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.

Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.

It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.

The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
 

Fewer doses out of the gate

Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.

He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.

In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.

Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.

Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”

That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.

Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.

Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.

It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.

The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
 

Fewer doses out of the gate

Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.

He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.

In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.

Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.

Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”

That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government says it will distribute only enough doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to immunize 2.9 million Americans in the first week after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes it, far less than the initially discussed 6.4 million doses.

Theoretically, states have already formulated plans for distribution based on the revised lower amount. But in a briefing with reporters on December 9, officials from Operation Warp Speed and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) didn’t make clear exactly what the states were expecting.

Vaccine will be shipped to and allocated by 64 jurisdictions and five federal agencies — the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Indian Health Service, and the Veterans Health Administration — according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook.

It will be up to states — which will receive a supply prorated to population — and these agencies to determine how to prioritize distribution of the 2.9 million doses. Each state and agency has its own plan. Gen. Gustave Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, said in the briefing that 30 states have told the federal government they will prioritize initial doses for residents and staff of long-term care facilities.

The distribution is contingent on FDA authorization, which could happen soon. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee weighed the effectiveness data for the Pfizer vaccine on December 10 and recommended that the agency grant emergency authorization. The FDA could issue a decision at any time.
 

Fewer doses out of the gate

Perna said the federal government will begin shipping the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization.

He said those shipments will include a total of 2.9 million doses — not the 6.4 million that will be available. The government is holding 500,000 doses in reserve and another 2.9 million to guarantee that the first few million people who are vaccinated will be able to receive a second dose 21 days later, said Perna.

In part, that is because the FDA labeling will require that a first dose be followed by a second exactly 21 days later, said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in the briefing.

Federal officials have calculated how much to hold back on the basis of Pfizer’s production, said Azar. At least initially, “we will not distribute a vaccine knowing that the booster will not be available either from reserve supply by us or ongoing expected predicted production,” he said.

Even with Pfizer having reduced its estimates of how much vaccine it can deliver in December, Azar said, “There will be enough vaccine available for 20 million first vaccinations in the month of December.”

That estimate is predicated, however, on the idea that a vaccine under development by Moderna will receive clearance shortly after the FDA assesses that vaccine’s safety and effectiveness on December 17.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on Thursday told US regulators that the benefits of Pfizer's COVID vaccine outweigh its risks for people aged 16 years and older, moving this product closer to a special emergency clearance. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Pfizer's application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), seeking expert feedback on what is likely to be the first COVID-19 vaccine cleared for use in the United States.

New York-based Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its vaccine, known as BNT162b2, which it developed with Germany's BioNTech. The FDA asked its advisers to vote on a single question regarding this product: "Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 16 years of age and older?"

The members of VRBPAC voted 17-4 in favor of the Pfizer vaccine, with one panelist abstaining. The FDA considers the recommendations of its panels, but is not bound by them. The agency is expected to quickly grant the special clearance to Pfizer's vaccine, with the company then expected to complete work needed for a more complete biologics license application (BLA).

The FDA often allows members of its advisory committees to explain the reasons for their decisions to vote for or against an application after the tallies are publicly counted.

But the FDA did not give VRBPAC members this opportunity on Thursday, leaving the public without detailed insight into their support or objections.

Before the vote, several panelists had asked if the FDA could rephrase the voting question, raising the age for the approved group to perhaps 18 years of age. During the day, panelists also had questioned whether Pfizer's studies give enough information to judge whether the vaccine works against severe cases of COVID. And there was a discussion about how Pfizer could address concerns about the potential for allergic reactions to the vaccine, given the news of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions after having the vaccine but who have since recovered.

In closing the meeting, VRBPAC chairman, Arnold Monto, MD, noted that the panel will on Dec. 17 meet again to offer recommendations on Moderna Inc.'s COVID vaccine.

"I believe most of us are going to be revisiting some of these issues in about a week," he said.

The panelist who abstained was H. Cody Meissner, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious disease from Tufts University. He earlier was among the several panelists who raised questions about the limited data available about the benefit to those ages 16 and 17. Those voting against the application were Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD; Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD; A. Oveta Fuller, PhD, and David Kim, MD, MA, according to a tally read by the FDA staff after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Toubman, JD, voted in favor of the application according to the FDA staff's tally. Toubman had been a chief critic among VRBPAC members in reviewing Pfizer's application at the meeting. He'd suggested limiting the EUA to healthcare workers and residents of nursing homes. Members of these two groups are expected to be the first in the US to get Pfizer's vaccine, for which there will be only a limited initial supply. That idea gained no traction.

Toubman also pressed for more evidence that Pfizer's vaccine will work against severe cases of COVID.

The FDA staff on December 8 released a largely positive agency review of Pfizer vaccine. The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group. The FDA staff said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3% to 97.6%.

In that review, the FDA staff said there may be a hint from the results observed to date that the Pfizer vaccine may help ward off severe cases of COVID-19. There were 10 study participants that had severe COVID-19 disease after the first dose: one who received the vaccine and nine who received placebo.

"The total number of severe cases is small, which limits the overall conclusions that can be drawn; however, the case split does suggest protection from severe COVID-19 disease," the FDA staff said.

At the meeting today, Doron Fink, MD, PhD, a lead FDA official on the COVID vaccine review, responded directly to Toubman's concerns. There are many examples of vaccines that protect as well if not better against severe disease as they do against mild to moderate disease, Fink said.

"Protecting against disease of any severity is actually a pretty good predictor of protection against severe disease," Fink said, adding that there's already been a "strong result" shown in terms of the efficacy of Pfizer's vaccine.

Rolling out

Canadian health regulators on December 9 announced their nation's conditional approval of Pfizer's vaccine for people ages 16 and older.  In the United Kingdom, a widely publicized rollout of Pfizer's vaccine began on Dec. 8. News quickly spread about two workers in the National Health Service having allergic reactions following vaccination. Both of these workers carry adrenaline autoinjectors, suggesting they have suffered reactions in the past, the Guardian reported. These kinds of autoinjectors are well known in the United States under the brand name EpiPen.

A noted vaccine expert serving on VRBPAC, Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urged the FDA and Pfizer to investigate any connection between reaction to the vaccine and known allergies. If not fully addressed, reports of the reactions seen in initial vaccinations in the UK could prove to unnecessarily frighten people who have allergies away from getting the COVID shot, he said.

Offit suggested running tests where people with egg and peanut allergies would get the Pfizer vaccine under close medical observation "to prove that this is not going to be a problem."

"This is a practical solution because this issue is not going to die until we have better data," Offit said.

More than a dozen COVID-19 vaccines have reached advanced stages of testing, including ones developed in Russia and China, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The two leading candidates for the US market are the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and a similar vaccine developed by Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are among the other companies with COVID-19 vaccines in testing.

The rapid development of COVID vaccines will create challenges in testing these products. A key issue will be how and whether to continue with placebo-controlled trials, even though such research would be helpful, FDA advisers said.

The FDA tasked Steven Goodman, MD, MHS, PhD, of Stanford University with presenting an overview of considerations for continuing a placebo-controlled trial as COVID vaccines become available. Once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available to the public, people who have received placebo in the Pfizer trial should not be allowed to immediately receive the vaccine, Goodman said.

There isn't a strong medically-based argument against placebo-controlled research in COVID-19, as many people can take steps to reduce their risk for the infection, Goodman said.

"So as long as there are still important things to learn about the vaccine, placebo-controlled trials should not be regarded as unethical," Goodman said. " I think, however, they might be infeasible. And that is a big issue, because people may not be willing to either remain in the study or to enroll."

During the public comment session, a former FDA official spoke of a need for careful consideration of study volunteers' needs in designing trials of COVID-19 vaccines.

"Reasonable people can disagree over whether study subjects should have priority access to a product whose efficacy they helped demonstrate," said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "But we ought to be able to agree on this: No subject who has put their body on the line in a vaccine study should be at a disadvantage in terms of vaccine access as a result of their participation."

Lurie argued against extended periods of blinded follow-up after authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a requirement would be "hard to justify ethically, if it is inconsistent with public health recommendations, particularly with rapidly rising case rates and the reported levels of effectiveness" of the Pfizer vaccine, said Lurie, who served as an associate commissioner at FDA from 2014 to 2017.

Lurie also noted the FDA staff's identification of what he called "disproportionate numbers of Bell's Palsy cases (4 in the vaccine groups vs. 0 in the placebo group)" as a matter that should continue to be monitored, including in the postmarketing phase. He raised no objections to the EUA.

Sidney Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen's Health Research Group, also spoke at the public comment session, citing no objection to an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Like Lurie, he urged special consideration of people who have or will receive placebo in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The Thursday advisory committee on the Pfizer vaccine differed from those held for many other products. The discussion focused more on how to monitor and evaluate the vaccine once approved, while advisory committees sometimes include a detailed look at whether a company has proven that its product works. One of the special advisers serving temporarily on VRBPAC, Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, also today published an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention."

In the editorial, Rubin and coauthor, Dan L. Longo, MD, called the Pfizer vaccine results seen so far "impressive."

"In the primary analysis, only 8 cases of Covid-19 were seen in the vaccine group, as compared with 162 in the placebo group, for an overall efficacy of 95% (with a 95% credible interval of 90.3 to 97.6%)," they write. "Although the trial does not have the statistical power to assess subgroups, efficacy appeared to be similar in low-risk and high-risk persons, including some from communities that have been disproportionately affected by disease, and in participants older than 55 years of age and those younger than 55."

Intense Scrutiny

The FDA has come under intense scrutiny this year in part because of the aggressive — and ultimately unrealistic — timelines for COVID-19 treatments promoted by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump several times suggested a COVID-19 vaccine could be approved before the November election. Many concerned physicians and scientists including Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, called on FDA staff to fight back against any bid to inappropriately speed the approval process for political reasons.

"Any shortcuts will not only jeopardize the vaccine programs but betray the public trust, which is already fragile about vaccines, and has been made more so by your lack of autonomy from the Trump administration and its overt politicization of the FDA," Topol wrote in an August open letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD.

In an October interview with Topol, Hahn noted that there has been some pushback against the idea of an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine, with some people preferring to wait for a more complete biological license application.

"When you're talking about a pandemic where people are dying, you want to expedite it as much as possible," Hahn told Topol in the interview.

On Thursday, Hahn issued a public statement about the VRBPAC meeting. Hahn said the FDA's "career staff — made up of physicians, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, statisticians, and other professionals — have been working around the clock to thoroughly evaluate the data and information in the EUA request."

"I can assure you that no vaccine will be authorized for use in the United States until FDA career officials feel confident in allowing their own families to receive it," Hahn said.

Many clinicians offered their views on the FDA meeting during the day on Twitter.

Robert Wachter, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has been a vocal opponent of some of Trump's public statements on COVID-19, urged state officials to stick with the FDA's call on the Pfizer vaccine. In a tweet, he noted that officials in California and several other states have called for independent reviews of COVID-19 vaccines.

If such reviews were to delay distribution of vaccines, this would "lead to more harm than good," Wachter tweeted. "Once FDA says 'go', we should go."

This article was updated 12/10/20.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional results from the THALES trial have shown that 1 month’s dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor (Brilinta; Astra Zeneca) plus aspirin is associated with a reduction in disabling stroke, compared with aspirin alone in patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Primary results of the THALES trial, published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed a reduction in the primary endpoint of stroke or death within 30 days with the combination of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, although this was accompanied by an increase in bleeding. In terms of risk/benefit, the main results showed that for every 1,000 patients treatment with ticagrelor on top of aspirin would prevent 11 strokes or deaths at the cost of four severe hemorrhages.

The current exploratory analysis, which focuses on the severity of the strokes occurring in the trial, was published online Nov. 7 in JAMA Neurology to coincide with its presentation at the European Stroke Organisation-World Stroke Organization Conference 2020.

Results showed that, compared with aspirin alone, ticagrelor plus aspirin significantly reduced the 30-day risk for disabling stroke or death (4.0% versus 4.7%), and the total disability burden (the shift analysis of the distribution of modified Rankin scale) following subsequent ischemic stroke was reduced by a significant 23%.

“This new information on disabling stroke underlines the importance of getting patients on dual antiplatelet therapy quickly after a TIA or mild stroke,” said principal investigator of the THALES trial, S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

Dr. Johnston, who is dean of Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, added: “It’s reassuring that ticagrelor has this effect, which was pretty robust. An accompanying editorial to the THALES publication in the NEJM incorrectly stated that ticagrelor did not reduce risk of disabling stroke, so it is good to be able to correct that misconception with this new data.”

Lead author of the exploratory analysis, Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor of neurology at Bichat University Hospital, Paris, added: “The main results showed that ticagrelor on top of aspirin reduced stroke but now we have new information showing reduction in disabling stroke. Obviously, these are the most important types of stroke to prevent. These are the strokes that will impact patients functionally.”

The THALES trial included 11,016 patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA, of whom 10,803 had modified Rankin Scale (mRS) functional score recorded at 30 days. 

They were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for 1 month) or placebo. All patients received aspirin (300-325 mg on day 1 followed by 75-100 mg daily for 1 month).

In the new analysis, time to occurrence of disabling stroke (mRS greater than 1) or death within 30 days occurred in 221 of 5,511 patients (4.0%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 260 of 5,478 patients (4.7%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.83; P = .04).

The ordinal analysis of mRS in patients with recurrent stroke showed a shift of the disability burden following a recurrent ischemic stroke in favor of ticagrelor (odds ratio, 0.77; P = .002).

Factors associated with disability were baseline NIHSS score of 4-5, ipsilateral stenosis of at least 30%, Asian race/ethnicity, older age, and higher systolic blood pressure.

Asked how the current results compared with observations reported in the main NEJM paper of similar incidences of disability (mRS > 1) in the two groups, Dr. Johnston explained that the result in the original paper looked at disability in the overall population, not just those who went on to have a stroke during follow-up. 

“The problem with looking at overall disability is that most of it is actually from the index stroke (the one that led to the patient being enrolled in the trial). That creates a lot of noise that overwhelms the benefit in reducing disability due to new stroke, the thing we really care about and the subject of the new paper,” he commented.
 

Ticagrelor or clopidogrel?

Ticagrelor now becomes the second antiplatelet agent to have shown benefits on top of aspirin in the minor stroke and high-risk TIA population. Clopidogrel also showed a reduction in major ischemic events in the POINT trial as well as in the Chinese CHANCE trial in similar populations.

Dr. Amarenco pointed out, however, that until now the only treatment that has been shown to reduce disabling stroke in the minor stroke/high risk TIA population in a single trial is aspirin. “The CHANCE and POINT trials of clopidogrel did not show a reduction in disabling stroke individually but this was observed when the trials were combined,” he noted. 

“Clinicians will now have to choose between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. We don’t have a head-to-head comparison yet but ticagrelor is effective in all patients whereas clopidogrel may not be as effective in the large subgroup of patients who carry the loss of function gene which make up about 20% of the western population and about 40% of the Asian population,” he said. 

“It is very important in the acute phase of stroke to know that the antiplatelet drug is immediately effective as the risk of a recurrent event is highest in the first few hours and days.”

Dr. Amarenco acknowledged that some hospitals may favor clopidogrel because of cost, as it is available generically so is much cheaper than ticagrelor. “But we are only talking about 30 days of treatment, so cost is not too much of an issue,” he pointed out.  

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved use of ticagrelor in this indication on the basis of the THALES study.

“It is great news that vascular neurologists now have a new player for reducing future stroke in these patients,” Dr. Amarenco said. Clopidogrel is not approved for this indication but is recommended in American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, he added.  

Dr. Johnston, who was also the lead investigator of the POINT trial with clopidogrel, suggested that it is more important to get patients on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than worrying too much about which agent to use. “I think we can use aspirin plus either ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The effect on disabling stroke was not significant in POINT but it did reach significance in a meta-analysis combining POINT and CHANCE,” he noted.

He said that choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel is tricky without head-to-head data. “Differences in the studied populations makes direct comparison of the trials unwise,” he stressed.

Dr. Johnston pointed out that neither of the clopidogrel trials included moderate strokes (NIHSS scores of 4 and 5) in their study population. “We only have data on ticagrelor for this important group, which accounted for 30% of the THALES study population,” he noted.

“Some people are concerned about the limited efficacy of clopidogrel in large subgroups of patients who do not metabolize it to its active form, but on the flip side, clopidogrel is cheaper – though a 21- to 30-day course [of ticagrelor] probably isn’t that costly – and has more data in combination with aspirin,” he added.

Dr. Johnston said that the approval of ticagrelor for this new indication was “reassuring,” and “provides some air cover for practitioners given the risks of hemorrhage.” He added: “We didn’t bother with an FDA submission after POINT because it was an NIH-sponsored trial. The drug company normally prioritizes regulatory approvals for marketing purposes but their interests were limited because clopidogrel has exceeded its patent life.”

Cost-utility analyses are not yet available, but Dr. Johnston noted: “I suspect both drugs will have substantial benefits and be cost saving. Stroke is expensive, particularly disabling stroke.”

Dr. Johnston said that the more important message is: “Get these people on dual-antiplatelet therapy as soon as possible. Too many patients are not getting the right treatment immediately after symptom onset. We have lots of work to do here.”
 

Reassuring information

Commenting on the research, J. David Spence, MD, professor of neurology at the Robarts Research Institute, London, Ont., who was not involved in the THALES trial, said this new analysis provided useful and important information that should reassure and encourage clinicians to use dual-antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.

He pointed out that the shift analysis gives the most clinically relevant results. “While the number of patients with a disabling stroke defined as an mRS greater than 1 is lower in the ticagrelor group, I am much more interested in the effect on more severe disability levels – those with an mRS score of 3 or more. Those are the disabilities that we really want to prevent. And from examining the shift analysis distribution, we can see that these more severe disabilities are being reduced with ticagrelor.”

Dr. Spence believes the benefit/risk ratio of dual-antiplatelet therapy could be further improved by better control of blood pressure. “The absolute risk of severe hemorrhage was low in this study, but in my view, most of this could have been prevented by better control of hypertension, as 20 of the 28 severe hemorrhages in the ticagrelor group were intracranial bleeds which can be significantly reduced by good blood pressure control.

“In my view, the increased risk of hemorrhage with dual-antiplatelet therapy should not be regarded as inevitable; it can be virtually eliminated with better medical care,” he stated.

Another outside commentator, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, University of Oxford (England), also believes this is an important paper. “The main NEJM report presented the data on overall disability, but did not present a clear analysis of the effect of ticagrelor plus aspirin on disabling recurrent stroke, but disability in all patients is mainly determined by nonvascular premorbid disability and by the effects of the initial prerandomization stroke. It was highly unlikely that ticagrelor plus aspirin would change these pretrial factors. The only thing that treatment could change was the severity of any posttreatment recurrent stroke, which it did,” he said.

“There is evidence that aspirin plus clopidogrel has the same effect on disabling recurrent stroke. So we now know that ticagrelor plus aspirin also has this effect, which informs consideration of the relative merits of the two treatment strategies,” Dr. Rothwell added.

The THALES trial was sponsored by Astra Zeneca. Dr. Johnston reports support from Sanofi and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Amarenco reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study. 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional results from the THALES trial have shown that 1 month’s dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor (Brilinta; Astra Zeneca) plus aspirin is associated with a reduction in disabling stroke, compared with aspirin alone in patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Primary results of the THALES trial, published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed a reduction in the primary endpoint of stroke or death within 30 days with the combination of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, although this was accompanied by an increase in bleeding. In terms of risk/benefit, the main results showed that for every 1,000 patients treatment with ticagrelor on top of aspirin would prevent 11 strokes or deaths at the cost of four severe hemorrhages.

The current exploratory analysis, which focuses on the severity of the strokes occurring in the trial, was published online Nov. 7 in JAMA Neurology to coincide with its presentation at the European Stroke Organisation-World Stroke Organization Conference 2020.

Results showed that, compared with aspirin alone, ticagrelor plus aspirin significantly reduced the 30-day risk for disabling stroke or death (4.0% versus 4.7%), and the total disability burden (the shift analysis of the distribution of modified Rankin scale) following subsequent ischemic stroke was reduced by a significant 23%.

“This new information on disabling stroke underlines the importance of getting patients on dual antiplatelet therapy quickly after a TIA or mild stroke,” said principal investigator of the THALES trial, S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

Dr. Johnston, who is dean of Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, added: “It’s reassuring that ticagrelor has this effect, which was pretty robust. An accompanying editorial to the THALES publication in the NEJM incorrectly stated that ticagrelor did not reduce risk of disabling stroke, so it is good to be able to correct that misconception with this new data.”

Lead author of the exploratory analysis, Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor of neurology at Bichat University Hospital, Paris, added: “The main results showed that ticagrelor on top of aspirin reduced stroke but now we have new information showing reduction in disabling stroke. Obviously, these are the most important types of stroke to prevent. These are the strokes that will impact patients functionally.”

The THALES trial included 11,016 patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA, of whom 10,803 had modified Rankin Scale (mRS) functional score recorded at 30 days. 

They were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for 1 month) or placebo. All patients received aspirin (300-325 mg on day 1 followed by 75-100 mg daily for 1 month).

In the new analysis, time to occurrence of disabling stroke (mRS greater than 1) or death within 30 days occurred in 221 of 5,511 patients (4.0%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 260 of 5,478 patients (4.7%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.83; P = .04).

The ordinal analysis of mRS in patients with recurrent stroke showed a shift of the disability burden following a recurrent ischemic stroke in favor of ticagrelor (odds ratio, 0.77; P = .002).

Factors associated with disability were baseline NIHSS score of 4-5, ipsilateral stenosis of at least 30%, Asian race/ethnicity, older age, and higher systolic blood pressure.

Asked how the current results compared with observations reported in the main NEJM paper of similar incidences of disability (mRS > 1) in the two groups, Dr. Johnston explained that the result in the original paper looked at disability in the overall population, not just those who went on to have a stroke during follow-up. 

“The problem with looking at overall disability is that most of it is actually from the index stroke (the one that led to the patient being enrolled in the trial). That creates a lot of noise that overwhelms the benefit in reducing disability due to new stroke, the thing we really care about and the subject of the new paper,” he commented.
 

Ticagrelor or clopidogrel?

Ticagrelor now becomes the second antiplatelet agent to have shown benefits on top of aspirin in the minor stroke and high-risk TIA population. Clopidogrel also showed a reduction in major ischemic events in the POINT trial as well as in the Chinese CHANCE trial in similar populations.

Dr. Amarenco pointed out, however, that until now the only treatment that has been shown to reduce disabling stroke in the minor stroke/high risk TIA population in a single trial is aspirin. “The CHANCE and POINT trials of clopidogrel did not show a reduction in disabling stroke individually but this was observed when the trials were combined,” he noted. 

“Clinicians will now have to choose between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. We don’t have a head-to-head comparison yet but ticagrelor is effective in all patients whereas clopidogrel may not be as effective in the large subgroup of patients who carry the loss of function gene which make up about 20% of the western population and about 40% of the Asian population,” he said. 

“It is very important in the acute phase of stroke to know that the antiplatelet drug is immediately effective as the risk of a recurrent event is highest in the first few hours and days.”

Dr. Amarenco acknowledged that some hospitals may favor clopidogrel because of cost, as it is available generically so is much cheaper than ticagrelor. “But we are only talking about 30 days of treatment, so cost is not too much of an issue,” he pointed out.  

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved use of ticagrelor in this indication on the basis of the THALES study.

“It is great news that vascular neurologists now have a new player for reducing future stroke in these patients,” Dr. Amarenco said. Clopidogrel is not approved for this indication but is recommended in American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, he added.  

Dr. Johnston, who was also the lead investigator of the POINT trial with clopidogrel, suggested that it is more important to get patients on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than worrying too much about which agent to use. “I think we can use aspirin plus either ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The effect on disabling stroke was not significant in POINT but it did reach significance in a meta-analysis combining POINT and CHANCE,” he noted.

He said that choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel is tricky without head-to-head data. “Differences in the studied populations makes direct comparison of the trials unwise,” he stressed.

Dr. Johnston pointed out that neither of the clopidogrel trials included moderate strokes (NIHSS scores of 4 and 5) in their study population. “We only have data on ticagrelor for this important group, which accounted for 30% of the THALES study population,” he noted.

“Some people are concerned about the limited efficacy of clopidogrel in large subgroups of patients who do not metabolize it to its active form, but on the flip side, clopidogrel is cheaper – though a 21- to 30-day course [of ticagrelor] probably isn’t that costly – and has more data in combination with aspirin,” he added.

Dr. Johnston said that the approval of ticagrelor for this new indication was “reassuring,” and “provides some air cover for practitioners given the risks of hemorrhage.” He added: “We didn’t bother with an FDA submission after POINT because it was an NIH-sponsored trial. The drug company normally prioritizes regulatory approvals for marketing purposes but their interests were limited because clopidogrel has exceeded its patent life.”

Cost-utility analyses are not yet available, but Dr. Johnston noted: “I suspect both drugs will have substantial benefits and be cost saving. Stroke is expensive, particularly disabling stroke.”

Dr. Johnston said that the more important message is: “Get these people on dual-antiplatelet therapy as soon as possible. Too many patients are not getting the right treatment immediately after symptom onset. We have lots of work to do here.”
 

Reassuring information

Commenting on the research, J. David Spence, MD, professor of neurology at the Robarts Research Institute, London, Ont., who was not involved in the THALES trial, said this new analysis provided useful and important information that should reassure and encourage clinicians to use dual-antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.

He pointed out that the shift analysis gives the most clinically relevant results. “While the number of patients with a disabling stroke defined as an mRS greater than 1 is lower in the ticagrelor group, I am much more interested in the effect on more severe disability levels – those with an mRS score of 3 or more. Those are the disabilities that we really want to prevent. And from examining the shift analysis distribution, we can see that these more severe disabilities are being reduced with ticagrelor.”

Dr. Spence believes the benefit/risk ratio of dual-antiplatelet therapy could be further improved by better control of blood pressure. “The absolute risk of severe hemorrhage was low in this study, but in my view, most of this could have been prevented by better control of hypertension, as 20 of the 28 severe hemorrhages in the ticagrelor group were intracranial bleeds which can be significantly reduced by good blood pressure control.

“In my view, the increased risk of hemorrhage with dual-antiplatelet therapy should not be regarded as inevitable; it can be virtually eliminated with better medical care,” he stated.

Another outside commentator, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, University of Oxford (England), also believes this is an important paper. “The main NEJM report presented the data on overall disability, but did not present a clear analysis of the effect of ticagrelor plus aspirin on disabling recurrent stroke, but disability in all patients is mainly determined by nonvascular premorbid disability and by the effects of the initial prerandomization stroke. It was highly unlikely that ticagrelor plus aspirin would change these pretrial factors. The only thing that treatment could change was the severity of any posttreatment recurrent stroke, which it did,” he said.

“There is evidence that aspirin plus clopidogrel has the same effect on disabling recurrent stroke. So we now know that ticagrelor plus aspirin also has this effect, which informs consideration of the relative merits of the two treatment strategies,” Dr. Rothwell added.

The THALES trial was sponsored by Astra Zeneca. Dr. Johnston reports support from Sanofi and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Amarenco reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study. 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional results from the THALES trial have shown that 1 month’s dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor (Brilinta; Astra Zeneca) plus aspirin is associated with a reduction in disabling stroke, compared with aspirin alone in patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Primary results of the THALES trial, published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed a reduction in the primary endpoint of stroke or death within 30 days with the combination of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, although this was accompanied by an increase in bleeding. In terms of risk/benefit, the main results showed that for every 1,000 patients treatment with ticagrelor on top of aspirin would prevent 11 strokes or deaths at the cost of four severe hemorrhages.

The current exploratory analysis, which focuses on the severity of the strokes occurring in the trial, was published online Nov. 7 in JAMA Neurology to coincide with its presentation at the European Stroke Organisation-World Stroke Organization Conference 2020.

Results showed that, compared with aspirin alone, ticagrelor plus aspirin significantly reduced the 30-day risk for disabling stroke or death (4.0% versus 4.7%), and the total disability burden (the shift analysis of the distribution of modified Rankin scale) following subsequent ischemic stroke was reduced by a significant 23%.

“This new information on disabling stroke underlines the importance of getting patients on dual antiplatelet therapy quickly after a TIA or mild stroke,” said principal investigator of the THALES trial, S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

Dr. Johnston, who is dean of Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, added: “It’s reassuring that ticagrelor has this effect, which was pretty robust. An accompanying editorial to the THALES publication in the NEJM incorrectly stated that ticagrelor did not reduce risk of disabling stroke, so it is good to be able to correct that misconception with this new data.”

Lead author of the exploratory analysis, Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor of neurology at Bichat University Hospital, Paris, added: “The main results showed that ticagrelor on top of aspirin reduced stroke but now we have new information showing reduction in disabling stroke. Obviously, these are the most important types of stroke to prevent. These are the strokes that will impact patients functionally.”

The THALES trial included 11,016 patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA, of whom 10,803 had modified Rankin Scale (mRS) functional score recorded at 30 days. 

They were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for 1 month) or placebo. All patients received aspirin (300-325 mg on day 1 followed by 75-100 mg daily for 1 month).

In the new analysis, time to occurrence of disabling stroke (mRS greater than 1) or death within 30 days occurred in 221 of 5,511 patients (4.0%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 260 of 5,478 patients (4.7%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.83; P = .04).

The ordinal analysis of mRS in patients with recurrent stroke showed a shift of the disability burden following a recurrent ischemic stroke in favor of ticagrelor (odds ratio, 0.77; P = .002).

Factors associated with disability were baseline NIHSS score of 4-5, ipsilateral stenosis of at least 30%, Asian race/ethnicity, older age, and higher systolic blood pressure.

Asked how the current results compared with observations reported in the main NEJM paper of similar incidences of disability (mRS > 1) in the two groups, Dr. Johnston explained that the result in the original paper looked at disability in the overall population, not just those who went on to have a stroke during follow-up. 

“The problem with looking at overall disability is that most of it is actually from the index stroke (the one that led to the patient being enrolled in the trial). That creates a lot of noise that overwhelms the benefit in reducing disability due to new stroke, the thing we really care about and the subject of the new paper,” he commented.
 

Ticagrelor or clopidogrel?

Ticagrelor now becomes the second antiplatelet agent to have shown benefits on top of aspirin in the minor stroke and high-risk TIA population. Clopidogrel also showed a reduction in major ischemic events in the POINT trial as well as in the Chinese CHANCE trial in similar populations.

Dr. Amarenco pointed out, however, that until now the only treatment that has been shown to reduce disabling stroke in the minor stroke/high risk TIA population in a single trial is aspirin. “The CHANCE and POINT trials of clopidogrel did not show a reduction in disabling stroke individually but this was observed when the trials were combined,” he noted. 

“Clinicians will now have to choose between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. We don’t have a head-to-head comparison yet but ticagrelor is effective in all patients whereas clopidogrel may not be as effective in the large subgroup of patients who carry the loss of function gene which make up about 20% of the western population and about 40% of the Asian population,” he said. 

“It is very important in the acute phase of stroke to know that the antiplatelet drug is immediately effective as the risk of a recurrent event is highest in the first few hours and days.”

Dr. Amarenco acknowledged that some hospitals may favor clopidogrel because of cost, as it is available generically so is much cheaper than ticagrelor. “But we are only talking about 30 days of treatment, so cost is not too much of an issue,” he pointed out.  

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved use of ticagrelor in this indication on the basis of the THALES study.

“It is great news that vascular neurologists now have a new player for reducing future stroke in these patients,” Dr. Amarenco said. Clopidogrel is not approved for this indication but is recommended in American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, he added.  

Dr. Johnston, who was also the lead investigator of the POINT trial with clopidogrel, suggested that it is more important to get patients on dual-antiplatelet therapy rather than worrying too much about which agent to use. “I think we can use aspirin plus either ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The effect on disabling stroke was not significant in POINT but it did reach significance in a meta-analysis combining POINT and CHANCE,” he noted.

He said that choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel is tricky without head-to-head data. “Differences in the studied populations makes direct comparison of the trials unwise,” he stressed.

Dr. Johnston pointed out that neither of the clopidogrel trials included moderate strokes (NIHSS scores of 4 and 5) in their study population. “We only have data on ticagrelor for this important group, which accounted for 30% of the THALES study population,” he noted.

“Some people are concerned about the limited efficacy of clopidogrel in large subgroups of patients who do not metabolize it to its active form, but on the flip side, clopidogrel is cheaper – though a 21- to 30-day course [of ticagrelor] probably isn’t that costly – and has more data in combination with aspirin,” he added.

Dr. Johnston said that the approval of ticagrelor for this new indication was “reassuring,” and “provides some air cover for practitioners given the risks of hemorrhage.” He added: “We didn’t bother with an FDA submission after POINT because it was an NIH-sponsored trial. The drug company normally prioritizes regulatory approvals for marketing purposes but their interests were limited because clopidogrel has exceeded its patent life.”

Cost-utility analyses are not yet available, but Dr. Johnston noted: “I suspect both drugs will have substantial benefits and be cost saving. Stroke is expensive, particularly disabling stroke.”

Dr. Johnston said that the more important message is: “Get these people on dual-antiplatelet therapy as soon as possible. Too many patients are not getting the right treatment immediately after symptom onset. We have lots of work to do here.”
 

Reassuring information

Commenting on the research, J. David Spence, MD, professor of neurology at the Robarts Research Institute, London, Ont., who was not involved in the THALES trial, said this new analysis provided useful and important information that should reassure and encourage clinicians to use dual-antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.

He pointed out that the shift analysis gives the most clinically relevant results. “While the number of patients with a disabling stroke defined as an mRS greater than 1 is lower in the ticagrelor group, I am much more interested in the effect on more severe disability levels – those with an mRS score of 3 or more. Those are the disabilities that we really want to prevent. And from examining the shift analysis distribution, we can see that these more severe disabilities are being reduced with ticagrelor.”

Dr. Spence believes the benefit/risk ratio of dual-antiplatelet therapy could be further improved by better control of blood pressure. “The absolute risk of severe hemorrhage was low in this study, but in my view, most of this could have been prevented by better control of hypertension, as 20 of the 28 severe hemorrhages in the ticagrelor group were intracranial bleeds which can be significantly reduced by good blood pressure control.

“In my view, the increased risk of hemorrhage with dual-antiplatelet therapy should not be regarded as inevitable; it can be virtually eliminated with better medical care,” he stated.

Another outside commentator, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, University of Oxford (England), also believes this is an important paper. “The main NEJM report presented the data on overall disability, but did not present a clear analysis of the effect of ticagrelor plus aspirin on disabling recurrent stroke, but disability in all patients is mainly determined by nonvascular premorbid disability and by the effects of the initial prerandomization stroke. It was highly unlikely that ticagrelor plus aspirin would change these pretrial factors. The only thing that treatment could change was the severity of any posttreatment recurrent stroke, which it did,” he said.

“There is evidence that aspirin plus clopidogrel has the same effect on disabling recurrent stroke. So we now know that ticagrelor plus aspirin also has this effect, which informs consideration of the relative merits of the two treatment strategies,” Dr. Rothwell added.

The THALES trial was sponsored by Astra Zeneca. Dr. Johnston reports support from Sanofi and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr. Amarenco reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study. 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer won’t be able to provide more COVID-19 vaccine doses to the United States until late June or July because other countries have bought up the available supply, according to The Washington Post.

The U.S. government signed a deal with the giant pharmaceutical company earlier this year to provide 100 million doses for $1.95 billion – enough for 50 million Americans to receive the two-dose vaccine. At that time, Pfizer officials encouraged Operation Warp Speed officials to purchase an additional 100 million doses, The New York Times first reported Dec. 7, but the federal officials declined.

Since then, other countries have signed vaccine deals with Pfizer, so the U.S. may not be able to receive a second major allotment until the summer of 2021, The Washington Post reported. Without a substantial number of additional doses, the U.S. may not be able to follow its schedule of vaccinating the majority of Americans against COVID-19 by April or May.

However, Trump administration officials told the newspaper that there won’t be issues, citing other vaccine companies such as Moderna.

“I’m not concerned about our ability to buy vaccines to offer to all of the American public,” Gen. Paul Ostrowski, who oversees logistics for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post.

“It’s clear that Pfizer made plans with other countries. Many have been announced. We understand those pieces,” he said.

With Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine on the verge of FDA approval, federal officials contacted the company last weekend to buy another 100 million doses, but the company said its current supply is already committed, the newspaper reported.

The vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is expected to win emergency approval within days and has been shown to be effective against COVID-19.

Pfizer added that it may be able to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million doses during the third quarter. However, the company can’t offer anything “substantial” until next summer.

Beyond the initial 100 million doses that the U.S. has already secured, Pfizer and federal officials would need to negotiate a new, “separate and mutually acceptable agreement,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, told the newspaper.

On Dec. 8, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order prioritizing vaccination for Americans first before providing doses to other countries, according to Fox News.

The order will provide guidelines to the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation for foreign assistance with vaccines, the news outlet reported.

It’s unclear whether the executive order is related to the Pfizer issue, whether the president can prevent a private company from fulfilling contracts with other countries, and whether President-elect Joe Biden will create his own policy, according to CNBC. The order may prove to be mostly symbolic.

The FDA could issue an emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine this week and will likely approve Moderna’s vaccine next week. The U.S. has signed a contract with Moderna for 100 million doses.

During a call with reporters on Dec. 7, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services said, “We are confident that we will have 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine as agreed to in our contract, and beyond that, we have five other vaccine candidates, including 100 million doses on the way from Moderna.”

Federal officials are counting on vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson to seek FDA approval in January and be ready for shipment in February.

“We could have all of them,” Moncef Slaoui, the chief science adviser for Operation Warp Speed, told The Washington Post on Dec. 7.

“And for this reason, we feel confident we could cover the needs without a specific cliff,” he said. “We have planned things in such a way as we would indeed avoid a cliff.”

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new type of laser therapy is safe and effective for children with drug-resistant epilepsy, new research suggests. In a study of nearly 150 children, more than half of those who received MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) were seizure free at 1 year.

Results show that this “is a new and promising therapy” for children for whom drug therapy has failed, said study investigator Elysa Widjaja, MD, a pediatric neuroradiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor in the department of medical imaging, University of Toronto.

In addition, the procedure is less invasive and requires a shorter hospital stay than does open epilepsy surgery, Dr. Widjaja said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Registry study

To date, most published studies on the laser procedure have had a small number of participants from only a few centers, Dr. Widjaja noted. “The aim of our registry is to collect data from multiple centers in both Canada and the U.S. to try to get a better understanding of the outcomes following laser therapy and the complications associated with this treatment,” she said.

In the procedure, a surgeon drills a tiny hole through the skull and, guided by MRI, inserts a very thin laser fiber into the center of the lesion. Heat then ablates the affected brain region.

From the dedicated registry, researchers recruited 182 children who were treated with MRgLITT at seven pediatric centers in the United States and two centers in Canada. The youngest patient was aged 14 months, and the oldest was aged 21 years (mean age, 11.2 years). Some pediatric hospitals treat patients up to age 21, Dr. Widjaja noted.

All of the study participants had focal epilepsy, “so the seizures are coming from a defined area of the brain,” she added. In addition, study participants’ conditions were drug-resistant, defined as conditions in which two antiseizure medications had previously failed.

The mean age at seizure onset was 5.4 years, and the mean number of antiepileptic drugs that were taken was 2.3.

Before receiving the therapy, children typically undergo extensive analyses, including MRI and video electroencephalography, to pinpoint where in the brain the seizures originate. Dr. Widjaja noted that the specific area of the brain that is affected varies widely from child to child.

The investigators collected baseline clinical characteristic and procedural data, including ablation site, type of lesion, length of stay, complications, number of MRgLITT procedures, and seizure outcome. To gather this information, they used a secure electronic platform designed to collect and store research data.
 

Seizure freedom

Among 137 patients for whom 1-year seizure outcomes were available, seizure freedom was reported for 74 patients (54%). In a recent meta-analysis conducted by the investigators, the rate of seizure-free outcomes following epilepsy surgery was about 65%. Although this rate is higher than with the laser therapy, Dr. Widjaja pointed out that the laser intervention is less invasive and the hospital stay of a mean of 3.3 days is shorter than the week or so needed after surgery. This, she said, makes the procedure cost-effective.

Unlike surgery, laser therapy is also “particularly good” at reaching lesions deep in the brain without damaging surrounding tissue, Dr. Widjaja said.

Although the researchers have not evaluated seizure outcomes with respect to age, Dr. Widjaja believes age is not a major factor in outcomes. “I suspect it’s the type of lesion and how big the lesion is that mainly influences the outcome, rather than actual age,” she said.

Complications related to the laser therapy, including infections and bleeding, occurred in 15% of patients. Neurologic deficits affected about 8% of patients; however, these tended to be transient, Dr. Widjaja noted. There were two cases (1%) of permanent neurologic deficits, both of which involved weakness of arms or legs. This, said Dr. Widjaja, is less than the 5% rate of permanent neurologic deficits that occur following surgery, as reported in the literature.

There were no cases of major intracranial hemorrhage among the participants. At 30 days, there was one reported death.

Laser therapy is limited to relatively small lesions of no more than about 2 cm on average, Dr. Widjaja said. “We normally can’t treat huge lesions using laser therapy; they would need surgery.” However, it is possible to treat the same area twice. In the current study, 20 patients (11%) underwent laser therapy on one region on two occasions. Of these participants, 12 (60%) achieved freedom from seizures.

Dr. Widjaja noted that two additional epilepsy centers will soon be providing laser therapy and will expand the registry. In addition, the investigators are building a surgery registry that will enable them to compare outcomes of laser treatment with surgery.

Currently, laser therapy is available only at specialized epilepsy centers that perform surgery.
 

‘Very important’ research

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, called this is “a very important study.”

Laser therapy “offers the opportunity for very rapid recovery from a minimally invasive, targeted technique while simultaneously offering promising outcomes,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted the importance of the investigators’ choosing freedom from seizures as the outcome of interest. In addition, the 54% seizure-freedom rate in the study is “substantially better” than rates from other interventions, he said.

“To put the results into perspective, other work has found that these same patients would have a less than 10% chance of seizure freedom if many different drug combinations were tried,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

He noted that the 1-year outcomes “are a good first time point” but that it is very important to assess longer-term outcomes. “Often, postsurgical outcomes are worse when looking at 2 or 5 years postoperatively,” he added. These longer-term data will be important “to fully inform our patients about long-term prognosis,” Dr. Goldenholz said.

Still, given the overall favorable results so far, “I think more centers will be likely to explore this newer technology,” he said.

The study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new type of laser therapy is safe and effective for children with drug-resistant epilepsy, new research suggests. In a study of nearly 150 children, more than half of those who received MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) were seizure free at 1 year.

Results show that this “is a new and promising therapy” for children for whom drug therapy has failed, said study investigator Elysa Widjaja, MD, a pediatric neuroradiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor in the department of medical imaging, University of Toronto.

In addition, the procedure is less invasive and requires a shorter hospital stay than does open epilepsy surgery, Dr. Widjaja said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Registry study

To date, most published studies on the laser procedure have had a small number of participants from only a few centers, Dr. Widjaja noted. “The aim of our registry is to collect data from multiple centers in both Canada and the U.S. to try to get a better understanding of the outcomes following laser therapy and the complications associated with this treatment,” she said.

In the procedure, a surgeon drills a tiny hole through the skull and, guided by MRI, inserts a very thin laser fiber into the center of the lesion. Heat then ablates the affected brain region.

From the dedicated registry, researchers recruited 182 children who were treated with MRgLITT at seven pediatric centers in the United States and two centers in Canada. The youngest patient was aged 14 months, and the oldest was aged 21 years (mean age, 11.2 years). Some pediatric hospitals treat patients up to age 21, Dr. Widjaja noted.

All of the study participants had focal epilepsy, “so the seizures are coming from a defined area of the brain,” she added. In addition, study participants’ conditions were drug-resistant, defined as conditions in which two antiseizure medications had previously failed.

The mean age at seizure onset was 5.4 years, and the mean number of antiepileptic drugs that were taken was 2.3.

Before receiving the therapy, children typically undergo extensive analyses, including MRI and video electroencephalography, to pinpoint where in the brain the seizures originate. Dr. Widjaja noted that the specific area of the brain that is affected varies widely from child to child.

The investigators collected baseline clinical characteristic and procedural data, including ablation site, type of lesion, length of stay, complications, number of MRgLITT procedures, and seizure outcome. To gather this information, they used a secure electronic platform designed to collect and store research data.
 

Seizure freedom

Among 137 patients for whom 1-year seizure outcomes were available, seizure freedom was reported for 74 patients (54%). In a recent meta-analysis conducted by the investigators, the rate of seizure-free outcomes following epilepsy surgery was about 65%. Although this rate is higher than with the laser therapy, Dr. Widjaja pointed out that the laser intervention is less invasive and the hospital stay of a mean of 3.3 days is shorter than the week or so needed after surgery. This, she said, makes the procedure cost-effective.

Unlike surgery, laser therapy is also “particularly good” at reaching lesions deep in the brain without damaging surrounding tissue, Dr. Widjaja said.

Although the researchers have not evaluated seizure outcomes with respect to age, Dr. Widjaja believes age is not a major factor in outcomes. “I suspect it’s the type of lesion and how big the lesion is that mainly influences the outcome, rather than actual age,” she said.

Complications related to the laser therapy, including infections and bleeding, occurred in 15% of patients. Neurologic deficits affected about 8% of patients; however, these tended to be transient, Dr. Widjaja noted. There were two cases (1%) of permanent neurologic deficits, both of which involved weakness of arms or legs. This, said Dr. Widjaja, is less than the 5% rate of permanent neurologic deficits that occur following surgery, as reported in the literature.

There were no cases of major intracranial hemorrhage among the participants. At 30 days, there was one reported death.

Laser therapy is limited to relatively small lesions of no more than about 2 cm on average, Dr. Widjaja said. “We normally can’t treat huge lesions using laser therapy; they would need surgery.” However, it is possible to treat the same area twice. In the current study, 20 patients (11%) underwent laser therapy on one region on two occasions. Of these participants, 12 (60%) achieved freedom from seizures.

Dr. Widjaja noted that two additional epilepsy centers will soon be providing laser therapy and will expand the registry. In addition, the investigators are building a surgery registry that will enable them to compare outcomes of laser treatment with surgery.

Currently, laser therapy is available only at specialized epilepsy centers that perform surgery.
 

‘Very important’ research

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, called this is “a very important study.”

Laser therapy “offers the opportunity for very rapid recovery from a minimally invasive, targeted technique while simultaneously offering promising outcomes,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted the importance of the investigators’ choosing freedom from seizures as the outcome of interest. In addition, the 54% seizure-freedom rate in the study is “substantially better” than rates from other interventions, he said.

“To put the results into perspective, other work has found that these same patients would have a less than 10% chance of seizure freedom if many different drug combinations were tried,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

He noted that the 1-year outcomes “are a good first time point” but that it is very important to assess longer-term outcomes. “Often, postsurgical outcomes are worse when looking at 2 or 5 years postoperatively,” he added. These longer-term data will be important “to fully inform our patients about long-term prognosis,” Dr. Goldenholz said.

Still, given the overall favorable results so far, “I think more centers will be likely to explore this newer technology,” he said.

The study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new type of laser therapy is safe and effective for children with drug-resistant epilepsy, new research suggests. In a study of nearly 150 children, more than half of those who received MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) were seizure free at 1 year.

Results show that this “is a new and promising therapy” for children for whom drug therapy has failed, said study investigator Elysa Widjaja, MD, a pediatric neuroradiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor in the department of medical imaging, University of Toronto.

In addition, the procedure is less invasive and requires a shorter hospital stay than does open epilepsy surgery, Dr. Widjaja said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Registry study

To date, most published studies on the laser procedure have had a small number of participants from only a few centers, Dr. Widjaja noted. “The aim of our registry is to collect data from multiple centers in both Canada and the U.S. to try to get a better understanding of the outcomes following laser therapy and the complications associated with this treatment,” she said.

In the procedure, a surgeon drills a tiny hole through the skull and, guided by MRI, inserts a very thin laser fiber into the center of the lesion. Heat then ablates the affected brain region.

From the dedicated registry, researchers recruited 182 children who were treated with MRgLITT at seven pediatric centers in the United States and two centers in Canada. The youngest patient was aged 14 months, and the oldest was aged 21 years (mean age, 11.2 years). Some pediatric hospitals treat patients up to age 21, Dr. Widjaja noted.

All of the study participants had focal epilepsy, “so the seizures are coming from a defined area of the brain,” she added. In addition, study participants’ conditions were drug-resistant, defined as conditions in which two antiseizure medications had previously failed.

The mean age at seizure onset was 5.4 years, and the mean number of antiepileptic drugs that were taken was 2.3.

Before receiving the therapy, children typically undergo extensive analyses, including MRI and video electroencephalography, to pinpoint where in the brain the seizures originate. Dr. Widjaja noted that the specific area of the brain that is affected varies widely from child to child.

The investigators collected baseline clinical characteristic and procedural data, including ablation site, type of lesion, length of stay, complications, number of MRgLITT procedures, and seizure outcome. To gather this information, they used a secure electronic platform designed to collect and store research data.
 

Seizure freedom

Among 137 patients for whom 1-year seizure outcomes were available, seizure freedom was reported for 74 patients (54%). In a recent meta-analysis conducted by the investigators, the rate of seizure-free outcomes following epilepsy surgery was about 65%. Although this rate is higher than with the laser therapy, Dr. Widjaja pointed out that the laser intervention is less invasive and the hospital stay of a mean of 3.3 days is shorter than the week or so needed after surgery. This, she said, makes the procedure cost-effective.

Unlike surgery, laser therapy is also “particularly good” at reaching lesions deep in the brain without damaging surrounding tissue, Dr. Widjaja said.

Although the researchers have not evaluated seizure outcomes with respect to age, Dr. Widjaja believes age is not a major factor in outcomes. “I suspect it’s the type of lesion and how big the lesion is that mainly influences the outcome, rather than actual age,” she said.

Complications related to the laser therapy, including infections and bleeding, occurred in 15% of patients. Neurologic deficits affected about 8% of patients; however, these tended to be transient, Dr. Widjaja noted. There were two cases (1%) of permanent neurologic deficits, both of which involved weakness of arms or legs. This, said Dr. Widjaja, is less than the 5% rate of permanent neurologic deficits that occur following surgery, as reported in the literature.

There were no cases of major intracranial hemorrhage among the participants. At 30 days, there was one reported death.

Laser therapy is limited to relatively small lesions of no more than about 2 cm on average, Dr. Widjaja said. “We normally can’t treat huge lesions using laser therapy; they would need surgery.” However, it is possible to treat the same area twice. In the current study, 20 patients (11%) underwent laser therapy on one region on two occasions. Of these participants, 12 (60%) achieved freedom from seizures.

Dr. Widjaja noted that two additional epilepsy centers will soon be providing laser therapy and will expand the registry. In addition, the investigators are building a surgery registry that will enable them to compare outcomes of laser treatment with surgery.

Currently, laser therapy is available only at specialized epilepsy centers that perform surgery.
 

‘Very important’ research

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, called this is “a very important study.”

Laser therapy “offers the opportunity for very rapid recovery from a minimally invasive, targeted technique while simultaneously offering promising outcomes,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted the importance of the investigators’ choosing freedom from seizures as the outcome of interest. In addition, the 54% seizure-freedom rate in the study is “substantially better” than rates from other interventions, he said.

“To put the results into perspective, other work has found that these same patients would have a less than 10% chance of seizure freedom if many different drug combinations were tried,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

He noted that the 1-year outcomes “are a good first time point” but that it is very important to assess longer-term outcomes. “Often, postsurgical outcomes are worse when looking at 2 or 5 years postoperatively,” he added. These longer-term data will be important “to fully inform our patients about long-term prognosis,” Dr. Goldenholz said.

Still, given the overall favorable results so far, “I think more centers will be likely to explore this newer technology,” he said.

The study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may explain 3% of all sudden deaths in children – a prevalence rate that is at least three times greater than previously reported estimates – new research shows.

Just a few years ago, the message regarding SUDEP was that “it’s very rare in children so you don’t need to worry about it,” said study investigator Vicky Whittemore, PhD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

These new study results should refocus the message that “the condition is rare, but not as rare as we thought it was,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Population-based study

Most of the research examining the pediatric SUDEP rate in the United States is based on convenience samples, with few population-based studies.

The investigators used data from the National Institutes of Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sudden Death in the Young Case Registry. The CDC set up the registry several years ago to record cases of sudden infant death syndrome and sudden deaths in children resulting from violence, trauma, and abuse. Its mandate has since expanded, and the registry now includes data on sudden cardiac death and SUDEP in children.

The current study included children with SUDEP or cardiac/SUDEP who were aged 0-17 years from several states or jurisdictions from 2015 to 2017. Cases were deemed to be SUDEP if the patient had a history of epilepsy, with or without evidence of seizure at the time of death, but excluding status epilepticus.

Criteria for cardiac/SUDEP cases included having a family history of a heritable cardiac condition or sudden death before age 50 years, a personal history of cardiac disease, or a clinical history suggestive of a cardiac disorder, such as death during exertion.

This second category, said Dr. Whittemore, might capture children with Dravet syndrome, a type of epilepsy caused by a genetic mutation that affects both the heart and the brain. “In these cases, it’s sometimes difficult to tell if the child died due to a heart complication or due to epilepsy,” she said.

The analysis included 1,776 cases. Of these, 3% were categorized as SUDEP, and 1% were categorized as cardiac/SUDEP.

The relatively high prevalence of SUDEP was somewhat unexpected, inasmuch as previous reports estimated the rate to be 0.5%-1%, said Dr. Whittemore.

She noted that the current study is population based and included all cases of child death, whereas past reports relied on death certificates. “That probably missed a lot of deaths because they weren’t recorded accurately on the death certificate or weren’t reported in a way that anyone could ascertain that it was a death in someone that had epilepsy.”
 

Racial differences

Autopsy rates were lower for SUDEP (70%), compared with other categories of death in the registry (81%-100%).

In most jurisdictions, parents must give consent for an autopsy to be performed for a child, and many parents who have suffered such a sudden loss don’t want further investigation, said Dr. Whittemore. “If you know your child had epilepsy, doing an autopsy really isn’t going to tell you very much. You already know they had epilepsy; you may not know the cause of the epilepsy, but an autopsy isn’t going to reveal as much as it would in children with sudden cardiac death.”

SUDEP was equally common in boys and girls. However, the SUDEP mortality rate was higher in Black children (0.32/100,000) than in White children (0.22/100,000). It’s unclear from this study why this is so, but another study that examined SUDEP rates by ZIP code suggested that the higher rate may be caused by socioeconomic factors, said Dr. Whittemore. “Black children from a lower-income family who don’t have access to care may not be getting as good treatment and so have more uncontrolled seizures, which may lead to higher incidence of SUDEP.”

SUDEP occurred at all ages, but mortality rates were highest among patients aged 0-1 year (0.53/100,000) and in those aged 14-17 years (0.31/100,000). Dr. Whittemore speculated that SUDEP rates were higher among the youngest patients because their seizures have just started, and it may be more difficult to bring them under control. In the past, some of these cases may have been classified as sudden infant death syndrome but are now recognized as SUDEP.

As for the older group, research shows that puberty can result in poorer seizure control, which may put teens at elevated risk for SUDEP, said Dr. Whittemore. She added that, as teens continue to age, SUDEP risk may continue to increase. Dr. Whittemore suggested that young adults who head off to college may stop taking their antiseizure medications or consume alcohol while taking these drugs.
 

Failure of arousal

The study results revealed that most SUDEP cases occurred during sleep without a witness. Dr. Whittemore believes that sleeping with one’s face in a pillow may prevent the reflex required to turn the head to breathe. “It’s sort of a failure of arousal that is potentially the underlying mechanism.”

In some cases, there are signs children had a seizure just prior to death, said Dr. Whittemore.

The researchers have now collected information for 2018 and 2019 and plan to add these data to the current 3-year results. “We will now expand our analysis to include these new numbers to make sure the trends we saw in those 3 years are continuing,” said Dr. Whittemore. The new results should help raise awareness that SUDEP is not as rare as previously believed.

Parents of children with epilepsy can take steps to help reduce the risk for SUDEP, she added. For example, they can use night monitors, and for the children at highest risk (e.g., those with Dravet syndrome), they can use an “alarm blanket” that alerts them when the child moves.
 

Much is still unknown

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, New York, who has participated in SUDEP research, said it “raises important questions about SUDEP in children and about racial disparities in SUDEP.”

The understanding of SUDEP so far “leaves much to be desired,” said Dr. Goldenholz. “We don’t yet know why it happens, and we don’t yet know how to prevent it.” The current study “brings a couple of new data points to the table which need further validation, confirmation, and explanation.”

The Sudden Death in Young Case Registry is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and the CDC. The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may explain 3% of all sudden deaths in children – a prevalence rate that is at least three times greater than previously reported estimates – new research shows.

Just a few years ago, the message regarding SUDEP was that “it’s very rare in children so you don’t need to worry about it,” said study investigator Vicky Whittemore, PhD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

These new study results should refocus the message that “the condition is rare, but not as rare as we thought it was,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Population-based study

Most of the research examining the pediatric SUDEP rate in the United States is based on convenience samples, with few population-based studies.

The investigators used data from the National Institutes of Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sudden Death in the Young Case Registry. The CDC set up the registry several years ago to record cases of sudden infant death syndrome and sudden deaths in children resulting from violence, trauma, and abuse. Its mandate has since expanded, and the registry now includes data on sudden cardiac death and SUDEP in children.

The current study included children with SUDEP or cardiac/SUDEP who were aged 0-17 years from several states or jurisdictions from 2015 to 2017. Cases were deemed to be SUDEP if the patient had a history of epilepsy, with or without evidence of seizure at the time of death, but excluding status epilepticus.

Criteria for cardiac/SUDEP cases included having a family history of a heritable cardiac condition or sudden death before age 50 years, a personal history of cardiac disease, or a clinical history suggestive of a cardiac disorder, such as death during exertion.

This second category, said Dr. Whittemore, might capture children with Dravet syndrome, a type of epilepsy caused by a genetic mutation that affects both the heart and the brain. “In these cases, it’s sometimes difficult to tell if the child died due to a heart complication or due to epilepsy,” she said.

The analysis included 1,776 cases. Of these, 3% were categorized as SUDEP, and 1% were categorized as cardiac/SUDEP.

The relatively high prevalence of SUDEP was somewhat unexpected, inasmuch as previous reports estimated the rate to be 0.5%-1%, said Dr. Whittemore.

She noted that the current study is population based and included all cases of child death, whereas past reports relied on death certificates. “That probably missed a lot of deaths because they weren’t recorded accurately on the death certificate or weren’t reported in a way that anyone could ascertain that it was a death in someone that had epilepsy.”
 

Racial differences

Autopsy rates were lower for SUDEP (70%), compared with other categories of death in the registry (81%-100%).

In most jurisdictions, parents must give consent for an autopsy to be performed for a child, and many parents who have suffered such a sudden loss don’t want further investigation, said Dr. Whittemore. “If you know your child had epilepsy, doing an autopsy really isn’t going to tell you very much. You already know they had epilepsy; you may not know the cause of the epilepsy, but an autopsy isn’t going to reveal as much as it would in children with sudden cardiac death.”

SUDEP was equally common in boys and girls. However, the SUDEP mortality rate was higher in Black children (0.32/100,000) than in White children (0.22/100,000). It’s unclear from this study why this is so, but another study that examined SUDEP rates by ZIP code suggested that the higher rate may be caused by socioeconomic factors, said Dr. Whittemore. “Black children from a lower-income family who don’t have access to care may not be getting as good treatment and so have more uncontrolled seizures, which may lead to higher incidence of SUDEP.”

SUDEP occurred at all ages, but mortality rates were highest among patients aged 0-1 year (0.53/100,000) and in those aged 14-17 years (0.31/100,000). Dr. Whittemore speculated that SUDEP rates were higher among the youngest patients because their seizures have just started, and it may be more difficult to bring them under control. In the past, some of these cases may have been classified as sudden infant death syndrome but are now recognized as SUDEP.

As for the older group, research shows that puberty can result in poorer seizure control, which may put teens at elevated risk for SUDEP, said Dr. Whittemore. She added that, as teens continue to age, SUDEP risk may continue to increase. Dr. Whittemore suggested that young adults who head off to college may stop taking their antiseizure medications or consume alcohol while taking these drugs.
 

Failure of arousal

The study results revealed that most SUDEP cases occurred during sleep without a witness. Dr. Whittemore believes that sleeping with one’s face in a pillow may prevent the reflex required to turn the head to breathe. “It’s sort of a failure of arousal that is potentially the underlying mechanism.”

In some cases, there are signs children had a seizure just prior to death, said Dr. Whittemore.

The researchers have now collected information for 2018 and 2019 and plan to add these data to the current 3-year results. “We will now expand our analysis to include these new numbers to make sure the trends we saw in those 3 years are continuing,” said Dr. Whittemore. The new results should help raise awareness that SUDEP is not as rare as previously believed.

Parents of children with epilepsy can take steps to help reduce the risk for SUDEP, she added. For example, they can use night monitors, and for the children at highest risk (e.g., those with Dravet syndrome), they can use an “alarm blanket” that alerts them when the child moves.
 

Much is still unknown

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, New York, who has participated in SUDEP research, said it “raises important questions about SUDEP in children and about racial disparities in SUDEP.”

The understanding of SUDEP so far “leaves much to be desired,” said Dr. Goldenholz. “We don’t yet know why it happens, and we don’t yet know how to prevent it.” The current study “brings a couple of new data points to the table which need further validation, confirmation, and explanation.”

The Sudden Death in Young Case Registry is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and the CDC. The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may explain 3% of all sudden deaths in children – a prevalence rate that is at least three times greater than previously reported estimates – new research shows.

Just a few years ago, the message regarding SUDEP was that “it’s very rare in children so you don’t need to worry about it,” said study investigator Vicky Whittemore, PhD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

These new study results should refocus the message that “the condition is rare, but not as rare as we thought it was,” she said.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Population-based study

Most of the research examining the pediatric SUDEP rate in the United States is based on convenience samples, with few population-based studies.

The investigators used data from the National Institutes of Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sudden Death in the Young Case Registry. The CDC set up the registry several years ago to record cases of sudden infant death syndrome and sudden deaths in children resulting from violence, trauma, and abuse. Its mandate has since expanded, and the registry now includes data on sudden cardiac death and SUDEP in children.

The current study included children with SUDEP or cardiac/SUDEP who were aged 0-17 years from several states or jurisdictions from 2015 to 2017. Cases were deemed to be SUDEP if the patient had a history of epilepsy, with or without evidence of seizure at the time of death, but excluding status epilepticus.

Criteria for cardiac/SUDEP cases included having a family history of a heritable cardiac condition or sudden death before age 50 years, a personal history of cardiac disease, or a clinical history suggestive of a cardiac disorder, such as death during exertion.

This second category, said Dr. Whittemore, might capture children with Dravet syndrome, a type of epilepsy caused by a genetic mutation that affects both the heart and the brain. “In these cases, it’s sometimes difficult to tell if the child died due to a heart complication or due to epilepsy,” she said.

The analysis included 1,776 cases. Of these, 3% were categorized as SUDEP, and 1% were categorized as cardiac/SUDEP.

The relatively high prevalence of SUDEP was somewhat unexpected, inasmuch as previous reports estimated the rate to be 0.5%-1%, said Dr. Whittemore.

She noted that the current study is population based and included all cases of child death, whereas past reports relied on death certificates. “That probably missed a lot of deaths because they weren’t recorded accurately on the death certificate or weren’t reported in a way that anyone could ascertain that it was a death in someone that had epilepsy.”
 

Racial differences

Autopsy rates were lower for SUDEP (70%), compared with other categories of death in the registry (81%-100%).

In most jurisdictions, parents must give consent for an autopsy to be performed for a child, and many parents who have suffered such a sudden loss don’t want further investigation, said Dr. Whittemore. “If you know your child had epilepsy, doing an autopsy really isn’t going to tell you very much. You already know they had epilepsy; you may not know the cause of the epilepsy, but an autopsy isn’t going to reveal as much as it would in children with sudden cardiac death.”

SUDEP was equally common in boys and girls. However, the SUDEP mortality rate was higher in Black children (0.32/100,000) than in White children (0.22/100,000). It’s unclear from this study why this is so, but another study that examined SUDEP rates by ZIP code suggested that the higher rate may be caused by socioeconomic factors, said Dr. Whittemore. “Black children from a lower-income family who don’t have access to care may not be getting as good treatment and so have more uncontrolled seizures, which may lead to higher incidence of SUDEP.”

SUDEP occurred at all ages, but mortality rates were highest among patients aged 0-1 year (0.53/100,000) and in those aged 14-17 years (0.31/100,000). Dr. Whittemore speculated that SUDEP rates were higher among the youngest patients because their seizures have just started, and it may be more difficult to bring them under control. In the past, some of these cases may have been classified as sudden infant death syndrome but are now recognized as SUDEP.

As for the older group, research shows that puberty can result in poorer seizure control, which may put teens at elevated risk for SUDEP, said Dr. Whittemore. She added that, as teens continue to age, SUDEP risk may continue to increase. Dr. Whittemore suggested that young adults who head off to college may stop taking their antiseizure medications or consume alcohol while taking these drugs.
 

Failure of arousal

The study results revealed that most SUDEP cases occurred during sleep without a witness. Dr. Whittemore believes that sleeping with one’s face in a pillow may prevent the reflex required to turn the head to breathe. “It’s sort of a failure of arousal that is potentially the underlying mechanism.”

In some cases, there are signs children had a seizure just prior to death, said Dr. Whittemore.

The researchers have now collected information for 2018 and 2019 and plan to add these data to the current 3-year results. “We will now expand our analysis to include these new numbers to make sure the trends we saw in those 3 years are continuing,” said Dr. Whittemore. The new results should help raise awareness that SUDEP is not as rare as previously believed.

Parents of children with epilepsy can take steps to help reduce the risk for SUDEP, she added. For example, they can use night monitors, and for the children at highest risk (e.g., those with Dravet syndrome), they can use an “alarm blanket” that alerts them when the child moves.
 

Much is still unknown

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, division of epilepsy, department of neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, New York, who has participated in SUDEP research, said it “raises important questions about SUDEP in children and about racial disparities in SUDEP.”

The understanding of SUDEP so far “leaves much to be desired,” said Dr. Goldenholz. “We don’t yet know why it happens, and we don’t yet know how to prevent it.” The current study “brings a couple of new data points to the table which need further validation, confirmation, and explanation.”

The Sudden Death in Young Case Registry is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and the CDC. The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.

The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.

“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”

Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.

Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.

“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.

Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.

The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).

Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.

Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.

Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.

Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.

“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”

She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.

Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”

The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.

“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.

The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.

The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.

“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”

Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.

The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.

“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”

Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.

Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.

“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.

Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.

The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).

Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.

Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.

Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.

Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.

“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”

She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.

Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”

The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.

“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.

The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.

The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.

“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”

Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.

The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.

“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”

Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.

Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.

“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.

Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.

The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).

Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.

Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.

Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.

Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.

“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”

She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.

Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”

The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.

“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.

The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.

The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.

“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”

Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with epilepsy with no previous psychiatric diagnosis have alarmingly high rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, new research suggests. In a study of more than 100 youth with the disorder, more than 40% had depression, 30% had anxiety, and about 1 in 10 exhibited signs of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

These rates “are really worrisome” and highlight the need to screen all children and young adults with epilepsy for psychiatric disorders, said study author Tatiana Falcone, MD, assistant professor of neurology and child and adolescent psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic.

“It’s very important to screen for suicidality and for depression and anxiety, even when patients aren’t reporting symptoms,” said Dr. Falcone.

Previous research shows children with epilepsy will attend the emergency room with symptoms such as headache or stomachache “when the main reason for the visit was the kid was suicidal,” Dr. Falcone said. “Unless you ask the specific question: ‘Are you having thoughts about hurting yourself?’ this will go unreported,” she added.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Red flag

Not much is known about suicidality in children and youth with epilepsy except that depression and anxiety – the most common psychiatric comorbidities in this population – appear to contribute to suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Falcone said that she and her colleagues often see children and adolescents with epilepsy in their clinic who have attempted suicide. In recent years, the clinicians have increased efforts to try to identify them before they carry out a successful suicide attempt, said lead investigator Anjali Dagar, MD, clinical research psychiatry fellow at Cleveland Clinic.

The study included 119 patients aged 10-24 years (mean age, 15.8 years; 54.6% female). All attended an epilepsy clinic or underwent testing in the pediatric epilepsy monitoring unit at the Cleveland Clinic and did not have a psychiatric diagnosis.

Epilepsy severity ranged among study participants. About half were drug resistant and were at the center for surgical evaluation and the others were newly diagnosed.

Participants filled out questionnaires to self-report psychiatric conditions. The validated screening tools included the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC), the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), and the Ask Suicide–Screening Questions (ASQ).

A score of 15 or higher on the CES-DC indicates a risk for depression. On the SCARED test, a score higher than 32 indicates anxiety. Recent research has shown that anxiety is a main risk factor “in moving people from contemplating suicide to actually carrying it out,” Dr. Falcone said.

The ASQ includes four questions about suicidal thoughts and whether respondents have tried to hurt themselves. Dr. Dagar noted that a positive response to any of these questions should raise a red flag.
 

Very high rates

Results showed that almost one-third (30.2%) of the participants scored positive for anxiety on SCARED and 41.2% scored positive for depression on the CSE-DC. These are “very high” rates, Dr. Falcone said. For comparison, the rate of reported anxiety is less than 10% in school surveys.

In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports about 3% of 2- to 17-year-olds in the general population have depression. Even compared with other chronic illnesses (including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer), children with epilepsy have a higher rate of depression, said Dr. Falcone.

More than 1 in 10 (10.9%) participants in the study exhibited signs of suicidality, as shown by having at least one positive response on the ASQ. “That’s a lot,” and much higher than the estimated rate in the general teen population, Dr. Falcone noted.

She noted that “these are just general kids with epilepsy” who had not been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality are very frequent comorbidities in patients with epilepsy; and even if a patient is not reporting any symptoms, we should be asking these questions to help them,” she said.

Study participants who had at least one positive response on the ASQ had a mean score of 32.1 on the SCARED, compared with a mean score of 18.3 for those who did not have a positive response on the ASQ (P = .003).

“We wanted to see if there was a direct association in our sample between anxiety and suicidal thoughts, and we found [that] yes there was,” Dr. Falcone said. There was also an association with depression. More than 26% of participants who scored 16 or higher on the CES-DC indicated at least one positive response on the ASQ. This is significantly higher than those who scored 15 or below on the CES-DC (P < .0001).
 

Bidirectional relationship

The findings suggest that either depression or anxiety may contribute to suicidal thoughts or behaviors, Dr. Dagar said. “It’s like two hands. It could be anxiety leading to suicidality, or it could be depression, or it could be both.”

Dr. Falcone noted that children with epilepsy who aren’t sure when they’ll get their next seizure, or who are bullied at school for being different, may be especially prone to anxiety or depression.

There’s a bit of a “chicken-and-egg” relationship between depression and epilepsy, a disorder affecting electrical signals in the brain, she said. Previous research has shown that a “bidirectional relationship” is involved.

“Even in patients with depression who are not diagnosed with epilepsy, the incidence of epilepsy is 3% higher just because you have depression,” Dr. Falcone said.

Suicidal youth tend to attempt suicide more than once. Dr. Falcone and colleagues are trying to intervene “at different levels,” be that in the hospital or as an outpatient, to prevent this from happening. “We want to find out what different things we can do to engage them and improve the probability they don’t reattempt,” she said.

All children and youth with epilepsy should be screened for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. From age 10 years, children with epilepsy should be screened at least once a year, but those with a psychiatric disorder should be screened more often, Dr. Falcone added. The investigators note their findings need to be confirmed in larger, more diverse studies.
 

Importance of screening

Michael Privitera, MD, director of the Epilepsy Center and professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, said the findings reinforce that, as with adults, depression and anxiety are common in children with epilepsy.

“Neurologists should take advantage of the many psychiatric screening tools available to identify these problems in their pediatric and adult patients,” Dr. Privitera said. Even more importantly, screening may help identify those who may be at highest risk of suicide.

The study was funded by the Health Resources Services Administration. The investigators and Dr. Privitera have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with epilepsy with no previous psychiatric diagnosis have alarmingly high rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, new research suggests. In a study of more than 100 youth with the disorder, more than 40% had depression, 30% had anxiety, and about 1 in 10 exhibited signs of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

These rates “are really worrisome” and highlight the need to screen all children and young adults with epilepsy for psychiatric disorders, said study author Tatiana Falcone, MD, assistant professor of neurology and child and adolescent psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic.

“It’s very important to screen for suicidality and for depression and anxiety, even when patients aren’t reporting symptoms,” said Dr. Falcone.

Previous research shows children with epilepsy will attend the emergency room with symptoms such as headache or stomachache “when the main reason for the visit was the kid was suicidal,” Dr. Falcone said. “Unless you ask the specific question: ‘Are you having thoughts about hurting yourself?’ this will go unreported,” she added.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Red flag

Not much is known about suicidality in children and youth with epilepsy except that depression and anxiety – the most common psychiatric comorbidities in this population – appear to contribute to suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Falcone said that she and her colleagues often see children and adolescents with epilepsy in their clinic who have attempted suicide. In recent years, the clinicians have increased efforts to try to identify them before they carry out a successful suicide attempt, said lead investigator Anjali Dagar, MD, clinical research psychiatry fellow at Cleveland Clinic.

The study included 119 patients aged 10-24 years (mean age, 15.8 years; 54.6% female). All attended an epilepsy clinic or underwent testing in the pediatric epilepsy monitoring unit at the Cleveland Clinic and did not have a psychiatric diagnosis.

Epilepsy severity ranged among study participants. About half were drug resistant and were at the center for surgical evaluation and the others were newly diagnosed.

Participants filled out questionnaires to self-report psychiatric conditions. The validated screening tools included the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC), the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), and the Ask Suicide–Screening Questions (ASQ).

A score of 15 or higher on the CES-DC indicates a risk for depression. On the SCARED test, a score higher than 32 indicates anxiety. Recent research has shown that anxiety is a main risk factor “in moving people from contemplating suicide to actually carrying it out,” Dr. Falcone said.

The ASQ includes four questions about suicidal thoughts and whether respondents have tried to hurt themselves. Dr. Dagar noted that a positive response to any of these questions should raise a red flag.
 

Very high rates

Results showed that almost one-third (30.2%) of the participants scored positive for anxiety on SCARED and 41.2% scored positive for depression on the CSE-DC. These are “very high” rates, Dr. Falcone said. For comparison, the rate of reported anxiety is less than 10% in school surveys.

In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports about 3% of 2- to 17-year-olds in the general population have depression. Even compared with other chronic illnesses (including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer), children with epilepsy have a higher rate of depression, said Dr. Falcone.

More than 1 in 10 (10.9%) participants in the study exhibited signs of suicidality, as shown by having at least one positive response on the ASQ. “That’s a lot,” and much higher than the estimated rate in the general teen population, Dr. Falcone noted.

She noted that “these are just general kids with epilepsy” who had not been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality are very frequent comorbidities in patients with epilepsy; and even if a patient is not reporting any symptoms, we should be asking these questions to help them,” she said.

Study participants who had at least one positive response on the ASQ had a mean score of 32.1 on the SCARED, compared with a mean score of 18.3 for those who did not have a positive response on the ASQ (P = .003).

“We wanted to see if there was a direct association in our sample between anxiety and suicidal thoughts, and we found [that] yes there was,” Dr. Falcone said. There was also an association with depression. More than 26% of participants who scored 16 or higher on the CES-DC indicated at least one positive response on the ASQ. This is significantly higher than those who scored 15 or below on the CES-DC (P < .0001).
 

Bidirectional relationship

The findings suggest that either depression or anxiety may contribute to suicidal thoughts or behaviors, Dr. Dagar said. “It’s like two hands. It could be anxiety leading to suicidality, or it could be depression, or it could be both.”

Dr. Falcone noted that children with epilepsy who aren’t sure when they’ll get their next seizure, or who are bullied at school for being different, may be especially prone to anxiety or depression.

There’s a bit of a “chicken-and-egg” relationship between depression and epilepsy, a disorder affecting electrical signals in the brain, she said. Previous research has shown that a “bidirectional relationship” is involved.

“Even in patients with depression who are not diagnosed with epilepsy, the incidence of epilepsy is 3% higher just because you have depression,” Dr. Falcone said.

Suicidal youth tend to attempt suicide more than once. Dr. Falcone and colleagues are trying to intervene “at different levels,” be that in the hospital or as an outpatient, to prevent this from happening. “We want to find out what different things we can do to engage them and improve the probability they don’t reattempt,” she said.

All children and youth with epilepsy should be screened for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. From age 10 years, children with epilepsy should be screened at least once a year, but those with a psychiatric disorder should be screened more often, Dr. Falcone added. The investigators note their findings need to be confirmed in larger, more diverse studies.
 

Importance of screening

Michael Privitera, MD, director of the Epilepsy Center and professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, said the findings reinforce that, as with adults, depression and anxiety are common in children with epilepsy.

“Neurologists should take advantage of the many psychiatric screening tools available to identify these problems in their pediatric and adult patients,” Dr. Privitera said. Even more importantly, screening may help identify those who may be at highest risk of suicide.

The study was funded by the Health Resources Services Administration. The investigators and Dr. Privitera have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with epilepsy with no previous psychiatric diagnosis have alarmingly high rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, new research suggests. In a study of more than 100 youth with the disorder, more than 40% had depression, 30% had anxiety, and about 1 in 10 exhibited signs of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

These rates “are really worrisome” and highlight the need to screen all children and young adults with epilepsy for psychiatric disorders, said study author Tatiana Falcone, MD, assistant professor of neurology and child and adolescent psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic.

“It’s very important to screen for suicidality and for depression and anxiety, even when patients aren’t reporting symptoms,” said Dr. Falcone.

Previous research shows children with epilepsy will attend the emergency room with symptoms such as headache or stomachache “when the main reason for the visit was the kid was suicidal,” Dr. Falcone said. “Unless you ask the specific question: ‘Are you having thoughts about hurting yourself?’ this will go unreported,” she added.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s 74th Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Red flag

Not much is known about suicidality in children and youth with epilepsy except that depression and anxiety – the most common psychiatric comorbidities in this population – appear to contribute to suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Falcone said that she and her colleagues often see children and adolescents with epilepsy in their clinic who have attempted suicide. In recent years, the clinicians have increased efforts to try to identify them before they carry out a successful suicide attempt, said lead investigator Anjali Dagar, MD, clinical research psychiatry fellow at Cleveland Clinic.

The study included 119 patients aged 10-24 years (mean age, 15.8 years; 54.6% female). All attended an epilepsy clinic or underwent testing in the pediatric epilepsy monitoring unit at the Cleveland Clinic and did not have a psychiatric diagnosis.

Epilepsy severity ranged among study participants. About half were drug resistant and were at the center for surgical evaluation and the others were newly diagnosed.

Participants filled out questionnaires to self-report psychiatric conditions. The validated screening tools included the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC), the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), and the Ask Suicide–Screening Questions (ASQ).

A score of 15 or higher on the CES-DC indicates a risk for depression. On the SCARED test, a score higher than 32 indicates anxiety. Recent research has shown that anxiety is a main risk factor “in moving people from contemplating suicide to actually carrying it out,” Dr. Falcone said.

The ASQ includes four questions about suicidal thoughts and whether respondents have tried to hurt themselves. Dr. Dagar noted that a positive response to any of these questions should raise a red flag.
 

Very high rates

Results showed that almost one-third (30.2%) of the participants scored positive for anxiety on SCARED and 41.2% scored positive for depression on the CSE-DC. These are “very high” rates, Dr. Falcone said. For comparison, the rate of reported anxiety is less than 10% in school surveys.

In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports about 3% of 2- to 17-year-olds in the general population have depression. Even compared with other chronic illnesses (including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer), children with epilepsy have a higher rate of depression, said Dr. Falcone.

More than 1 in 10 (10.9%) participants in the study exhibited signs of suicidality, as shown by having at least one positive response on the ASQ. “That’s a lot,” and much higher than the estimated rate in the general teen population, Dr. Falcone noted.

She noted that “these are just general kids with epilepsy” who had not been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

“Depression, anxiety, and suicidality are very frequent comorbidities in patients with epilepsy; and even if a patient is not reporting any symptoms, we should be asking these questions to help them,” she said.

Study participants who had at least one positive response on the ASQ had a mean score of 32.1 on the SCARED, compared with a mean score of 18.3 for those who did not have a positive response on the ASQ (P = .003).

“We wanted to see if there was a direct association in our sample between anxiety and suicidal thoughts, and we found [that] yes there was,” Dr. Falcone said. There was also an association with depression. More than 26% of participants who scored 16 or higher on the CES-DC indicated at least one positive response on the ASQ. This is significantly higher than those who scored 15 or below on the CES-DC (P < .0001).
 

Bidirectional relationship

The findings suggest that either depression or anxiety may contribute to suicidal thoughts or behaviors, Dr. Dagar said. “It’s like two hands. It could be anxiety leading to suicidality, or it could be depression, or it could be both.”

Dr. Falcone noted that children with epilepsy who aren’t sure when they’ll get their next seizure, or who are bullied at school for being different, may be especially prone to anxiety or depression.

There’s a bit of a “chicken-and-egg” relationship between depression and epilepsy, a disorder affecting electrical signals in the brain, she said. Previous research has shown that a “bidirectional relationship” is involved.

“Even in patients with depression who are not diagnosed with epilepsy, the incidence of epilepsy is 3% higher just because you have depression,” Dr. Falcone said.

Suicidal youth tend to attempt suicide more than once. Dr. Falcone and colleagues are trying to intervene “at different levels,” be that in the hospital or as an outpatient, to prevent this from happening. “We want to find out what different things we can do to engage them and improve the probability they don’t reattempt,” she said.

All children and youth with epilepsy should be screened for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. From age 10 years, children with epilepsy should be screened at least once a year, but those with a psychiatric disorder should be screened more often, Dr. Falcone added. The investigators note their findings need to be confirmed in larger, more diverse studies.
 

Importance of screening

Michael Privitera, MD, director of the Epilepsy Center and professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, said the findings reinforce that, as with adults, depression and anxiety are common in children with epilepsy.

“Neurologists should take advantage of the many psychiatric screening tools available to identify these problems in their pediatric and adult patients,” Dr. Privitera said. Even more importantly, screening may help identify those who may be at highest risk of suicide.

The study was funded by the Health Resources Services Administration. The investigators and Dr. Privitera have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19’s toll on member facilities pushed the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recently to take a sizable gamble.

AASM announced in September that it would waive facility fees at all 2,648 AASM-accredited sleep facilities for 2021.

At $1,800-$2,600 for each facility, that will mean lost revenue of between $4.8 million and $6.9 million, but it’s a risk the academy felt it had to take.

AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, said in an interview that they are betting on the future of the field.

An internal survey of members, he said, found that nearly half (46%) of the 551 respondents thought they might have to close by the end of the year.

In addition, 66% reported a lower patient volume in the past month, and 36% reported that their practice or facility had to apply for loans or other financial assistance because of COVID-19, AASM said in its press release.

“We are hoping that if we help our members through this, they will be there for our patients,” Dr. Ramar said.

Other medical societies also are weighing options, straddling the line between needing income to provide resources for members but being acutely aware of the financial toll the pandemic is taking, according to one sampling.

As previously reported, primary care practices are projected to lose more than $68,000 in revenue per full-time physician in 2020, after steep drops in office visits and the collection of fees from March to May, according to a study led by researchers in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those losses were calculated without considering a potential second wave of COVID-19 this year, the authors noted.
 

‘We can survive this’

Although AASM waived fees for its member facilities, individual physician fees have not been reduced so far. But the group is looking for more ways to help lower the economic burden on members, Dr. Ramar said.

“I don’t think we’ve ever been in this situation in the 45 years of the academy. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for challenges we’re going through,” he said. “The board and the leadership realized that, if we’re going to do something, this is the time to do it.”

In addition to waiving the fees, AASM and the AASM Foundation are offering relief funding to state and regional sleep societies and research award recipients through programs created in response to COVID-19.

Some societies said they are not making changes to their dues or fees, some are forgoing cost-of-living fee increases, and some are waiving registration fees for annual meetings.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) waived most members’ registration fees for its annual meeting in November. Typically, that fee would be $500-$800 per member, plus charges for some premium sessions, Michael Blaiss, MD, ACAAI executive medical director, said.

Dr. Blaiss said in an interview that the college thought offering its 6,000 members essentially 25 free hours of CME would benefit them more than waiving annual membership dues, which are about $425 for physicians in the United States.

If the pandemic stretches through 2021, Dr. Blaiss said, “We can survive this. I’m not worried about that at all.”

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

“I don’t think any organization would tell you it’s not having an effect on their income,” he said. “I know it is for us and for virtually any medical organization. A high percentage of income comes from the annual meeting.”

Waiving dues has not been a high priority among members in communications so far, Blaiss said.

American Academy of Dermatology President Bruce H. Thiers, MD, said in an interview that there will be no cost-of-living increase for 2021 dues, and AAD members can request a reduction in dues, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

“We understand that many members will have to make tough financial decisions,” he said.

In addition, AAD, which has more than 20,000 members, is exploring payment options to help members spread out the cost of membership.
 

ACP extends membership

The American College of Physicians, whose membership cycle starts in July, did not reduce dues but extended membership at no cost for 3 months through September to its 163,000 members, Phil Masters, MD, ACP’s vice president of membership, said in an interview.

It also expanded its educational offerings related to the pandemic, including webinars on physician wellness and issues regarding telemedicine.

He said expanding educational resources rather than waiving dues was an intentional decision after much discussion because “we’re primarily a services resource organization.”

Membership data are still being calculated, but early indications are that membership is not increasing this year, after seeing annual growth of about 2%-2.5%, Dr. Masters said. He noted that income is down “by several percent.” Annual membership dues average about $500 for physicians who have been practicing for 10 years.

“We’re well positioned to tolerate the ups and downs,” he said, but he acknowledged that “there’s no question the financial impact has been devastating on some practices.”

Like some other associations, ACP decided to cancel this year’s annual meeting, which had been planned for April. The 2021 annual meeting will be conducted online from April 29 to May 1.

Smaller organizations that rely heavily on income from the annual meeting will be severely challenged the longer the pandemic continues, Dr. Masters said.

The decision is not as simple as whether to reduce or eliminate dues, he noted. Organizations will have to reexamine their missions and structure their fees and offerings according to the needs of members.

“It’s a balance in doing things for the community at large and balancing the need to be sensitive to financial implications,” Dr. Masters said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19’s toll on member facilities pushed the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recently to take a sizable gamble.

AASM announced in September that it would waive facility fees at all 2,648 AASM-accredited sleep facilities for 2021.

At $1,800-$2,600 for each facility, that will mean lost revenue of between $4.8 million and $6.9 million, but it’s a risk the academy felt it had to take.

AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, said in an interview that they are betting on the future of the field.

An internal survey of members, he said, found that nearly half (46%) of the 551 respondents thought they might have to close by the end of the year.

In addition, 66% reported a lower patient volume in the past month, and 36% reported that their practice or facility had to apply for loans or other financial assistance because of COVID-19, AASM said in its press release.

“We are hoping that if we help our members through this, they will be there for our patients,” Dr. Ramar said.

Other medical societies also are weighing options, straddling the line between needing income to provide resources for members but being acutely aware of the financial toll the pandemic is taking, according to one sampling.

As previously reported, primary care practices are projected to lose more than $68,000 in revenue per full-time physician in 2020, after steep drops in office visits and the collection of fees from March to May, according to a study led by researchers in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those losses were calculated without considering a potential second wave of COVID-19 this year, the authors noted.
 

‘We can survive this’

Although AASM waived fees for its member facilities, individual physician fees have not been reduced so far. But the group is looking for more ways to help lower the economic burden on members, Dr. Ramar said.

“I don’t think we’ve ever been in this situation in the 45 years of the academy. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for challenges we’re going through,” he said. “The board and the leadership realized that, if we’re going to do something, this is the time to do it.”

In addition to waiving the fees, AASM and the AASM Foundation are offering relief funding to state and regional sleep societies and research award recipients through programs created in response to COVID-19.

Some societies said they are not making changes to their dues or fees, some are forgoing cost-of-living fee increases, and some are waiving registration fees for annual meetings.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) waived most members’ registration fees for its annual meeting in November. Typically, that fee would be $500-$800 per member, plus charges for some premium sessions, Michael Blaiss, MD, ACAAI executive medical director, said.

Dr. Blaiss said in an interview that the college thought offering its 6,000 members essentially 25 free hours of CME would benefit them more than waiving annual membership dues, which are about $425 for physicians in the United States.

If the pandemic stretches through 2021, Dr. Blaiss said, “We can survive this. I’m not worried about that at all.”

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

“I don’t think any organization would tell you it’s not having an effect on their income,” he said. “I know it is for us and for virtually any medical organization. A high percentage of income comes from the annual meeting.”

Waiving dues has not been a high priority among members in communications so far, Blaiss said.

American Academy of Dermatology President Bruce H. Thiers, MD, said in an interview that there will be no cost-of-living increase for 2021 dues, and AAD members can request a reduction in dues, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

“We understand that many members will have to make tough financial decisions,” he said.

In addition, AAD, which has more than 20,000 members, is exploring payment options to help members spread out the cost of membership.
 

ACP extends membership

The American College of Physicians, whose membership cycle starts in July, did not reduce dues but extended membership at no cost for 3 months through September to its 163,000 members, Phil Masters, MD, ACP’s vice president of membership, said in an interview.

It also expanded its educational offerings related to the pandemic, including webinars on physician wellness and issues regarding telemedicine.

He said expanding educational resources rather than waiving dues was an intentional decision after much discussion because “we’re primarily a services resource organization.”

Membership data are still being calculated, but early indications are that membership is not increasing this year, after seeing annual growth of about 2%-2.5%, Dr. Masters said. He noted that income is down “by several percent.” Annual membership dues average about $500 for physicians who have been practicing for 10 years.

“We’re well positioned to tolerate the ups and downs,” he said, but he acknowledged that “there’s no question the financial impact has been devastating on some practices.”

Like some other associations, ACP decided to cancel this year’s annual meeting, which had been planned for April. The 2021 annual meeting will be conducted online from April 29 to May 1.

Smaller organizations that rely heavily on income from the annual meeting will be severely challenged the longer the pandemic continues, Dr. Masters said.

The decision is not as simple as whether to reduce or eliminate dues, he noted. Organizations will have to reexamine their missions and structure their fees and offerings according to the needs of members.

“It’s a balance in doing things for the community at large and balancing the need to be sensitive to financial implications,” Dr. Masters said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19’s toll on member facilities pushed the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recently to take a sizable gamble.

AASM announced in September that it would waive facility fees at all 2,648 AASM-accredited sleep facilities for 2021.

At $1,800-$2,600 for each facility, that will mean lost revenue of between $4.8 million and $6.9 million, but it’s a risk the academy felt it had to take.

AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, said in an interview that they are betting on the future of the field.

An internal survey of members, he said, found that nearly half (46%) of the 551 respondents thought they might have to close by the end of the year.

In addition, 66% reported a lower patient volume in the past month, and 36% reported that their practice or facility had to apply for loans or other financial assistance because of COVID-19, AASM said in its press release.

“We are hoping that if we help our members through this, they will be there for our patients,” Dr. Ramar said.

Other medical societies also are weighing options, straddling the line between needing income to provide resources for members but being acutely aware of the financial toll the pandemic is taking, according to one sampling.

As previously reported, primary care practices are projected to lose more than $68,000 in revenue per full-time physician in 2020, after steep drops in office visits and the collection of fees from March to May, according to a study led by researchers in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Those losses were calculated without considering a potential second wave of COVID-19 this year, the authors noted.
 

‘We can survive this’

Although AASM waived fees for its member facilities, individual physician fees have not been reduced so far. But the group is looking for more ways to help lower the economic burden on members, Dr. Ramar said.

“I don’t think we’ve ever been in this situation in the 45 years of the academy. This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for challenges we’re going through,” he said. “The board and the leadership realized that, if we’re going to do something, this is the time to do it.”

In addition to waiving the fees, AASM and the AASM Foundation are offering relief funding to state and regional sleep societies and research award recipients through programs created in response to COVID-19.

Some societies said they are not making changes to their dues or fees, some are forgoing cost-of-living fee increases, and some are waiving registration fees for annual meetings.

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) waived most members’ registration fees for its annual meeting in November. Typically, that fee would be $500-$800 per member, plus charges for some premium sessions, Michael Blaiss, MD, ACAAI executive medical director, said.

Dr. Blaiss said in an interview that the college thought offering its 6,000 members essentially 25 free hours of CME would benefit them more than waiving annual membership dues, which are about $425 for physicians in the United States.

If the pandemic stretches through 2021, Dr. Blaiss said, “We can survive this. I’m not worried about that at all.”

But he acknowledged the painful effect on medical societies.

“I don’t think any organization would tell you it’s not having an effect on their income,” he said. “I know it is for us and for virtually any medical organization. A high percentage of income comes from the annual meeting.”

Waiving dues has not been a high priority among members in communications so far, Blaiss said.

American Academy of Dermatology President Bruce H. Thiers, MD, said in an interview that there will be no cost-of-living increase for 2021 dues, and AAD members can request a reduction in dues, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

“We understand that many members will have to make tough financial decisions,” he said.

In addition, AAD, which has more than 20,000 members, is exploring payment options to help members spread out the cost of membership.
 

ACP extends membership

The American College of Physicians, whose membership cycle starts in July, did not reduce dues but extended membership at no cost for 3 months through September to its 163,000 members, Phil Masters, MD, ACP’s vice president of membership, said in an interview.

It also expanded its educational offerings related to the pandemic, including webinars on physician wellness and issues regarding telemedicine.

He said expanding educational resources rather than waiving dues was an intentional decision after much discussion because “we’re primarily a services resource organization.”

Membership data are still being calculated, but early indications are that membership is not increasing this year, after seeing annual growth of about 2%-2.5%, Dr. Masters said. He noted that income is down “by several percent.” Annual membership dues average about $500 for physicians who have been practicing for 10 years.

“We’re well positioned to tolerate the ups and downs,” he said, but he acknowledged that “there’s no question the financial impact has been devastating on some practices.”

Like some other associations, ACP decided to cancel this year’s annual meeting, which had been planned for April. The 2021 annual meeting will be conducted online from April 29 to May 1.

Smaller organizations that rely heavily on income from the annual meeting will be severely challenged the longer the pandemic continues, Dr. Masters said.

The decision is not as simple as whether to reduce or eliminate dues, he noted. Organizations will have to reexamine their missions and structure their fees and offerings according to the needs of members.

“It’s a balance in doing things for the community at large and balancing the need to be sensitive to financial implications,” Dr. Masters said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.